> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Avry, please let me know any problem you have with
> > my assessment of the '95study that Audrey was referring to.
> Sure, Philip.
> In your link to your assessment you posed this
> question (I sure hope you don't come back with
> "What?!? Where did I say that? I never said that!")
> QUOTE: "Oddly, the authors believe the fault was in
> the C-14 studies and not the historic chronology.
> No explanation was offered to explain why the
> authors did not allow for the possibility that the
> historic chronology may be at fault and not the
> C-14 studies."
> Now, from the article posted by Lee:
> QUOTE: "Surprisingly, the earliest date 3809 ± 160
> BC of the Great Pyramid was given by two charcoal
> samples from a top layer of the Great Pyramid.
> These samples could date to as early as 3969 BC or
> as late as 3649 BC. Various pieces of evidence
> suggest that all great pyramids were built over
> older monuments, but then we would expect to find
> the earliest dates in lower and inner rather than
> in higher and outer layers. Anyhow, a wood sample
> from the same top layer gave a more realistic date
> of 3101 ± 414 BC. But this date has a much wider
> range, from 3515 BC to 2749 BC. Another sample
> from the same layer gave the date 3020 ± 131 BC.
> Thirteen other samples from the lower outside
> layers of the Great Pyramid, all radiocarbon
> except two, ranged from 3090 ± 153 to 2853 ± 104 BC".
> And there is your answer. Can you see why the C14
> study could be the problem? Allow me to point it out.
> Did the constructors have a time machine, i.e.
> built younger layers on the bottom, then went back
> in time to build older layers on top? No, they did
> not have a time machine, which is why the C14
> study was held suspect.
Why the sarcasm? And why are you ignoring the other far more realistic possibility? You must have missed the very logical comment by Jon that simply suggests the likelihood that the mortar is younger at the bottom levels because that's where most of the restorations have occurred in more recent years. This is exactly the point I made in my review of the '95 study. In that report the authors automatically assumed the sample data represented a homogeneous population rather than considering the possibility that the data was multimodal. The two quotes you posted (above) are consistent with each other. Your excerpt from Onvlee quoted above logically suggests that such restorations are a very real possibility. In fact, Onvlee agrees that the C14 data support the notion that the OK timeline is too compressed.
> There is only one escape for you on this,
> Philip, and it is your proof beyond doubt the AEs
> had a time machine. I don't have time for your
> childish games. There's your answer.
It is not the only "escape". You seem fixated on your own timeline and are not considering the other possibilities that are consistent with the evidence. Calling it "childish games" won't make that go away.
Meanwhile, you evaded my question. I didn't ask whether there was a problem with C14 methods. I only commented on the logical flaws in the '95 paper which are real and which you didn't address. My review of that paper had nothing to do with the validity of C14 dating, itself. It was about the faulty way the investigation was conducted and reported, just about every step of the way, regardless of the accuracy of the C14 method.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Jun-16 17:55 by Origyptian.